Page 41 of 44 First ... 313738394041424344 Last
  1. #401
    TheRuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334
    Style
    None
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim_Jude View Post
    That's funny, I think that Mark has been asked for A LOT more than most anyone else here
    Did you know that the Austin American-Statesman's online archives only go back to 1989?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim_Jude View Post
    Of course, I actually DON'T want him to answer.
    That sentiment is wholly unsuited to the MABS forum.
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas View Post
    Downstreet on the flip-flop, timepants.

  2. #402
    Snake Plissken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,553
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim_Jude View Post
    That's funny, I think that Mark has been asked for A LOT more than most anyone else here, & mostly from his vast reservoirs of patience.
    Of course, I actually DON'T want him to answer. Just a little "**** you" Parthian Shot at the whiney bitches. That **** Fauncey is gone, it doesn't even matter. & I'm glad about it.
    So expecting him to cite and confirm his sources is out of the question so long as you are happy?

  3. #403

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    18
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim_Jude View Post
    That's funny, I think that Mark has been asked for A LOT more than most anyone else here, & mostly from his vast reservoirs of patience.
    Of course, I actually DON'T want him to answer. Just a little "**** you" Parthian Shot at the whiney bitches. That **** Fauncey is gone, it doesn't even matter. & I'm glad about it.

    I'm not going to sugarcoat this. I have a mancrush on you. :)

  4. #404

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Yeah lets pretend that the issue is real simple shall we? Mark is being petulant, difficult and god forbid throwing his senority around... thats the problem here.
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.

  5. #405
    TheRuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334
    Style
    None
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsimon3387 View Post
    Yeah lets pretend that the issue is real simple shall we? Mark is being petulant, difficult and god forbid throwing his senority around... thats the problem here.
    I'm not really concerned with Mtripp either way. I'm concerned with Chuck's claims. Claims he made and claims he didn't make. Whether he was telling the truth, he himself was misled, or he was misleading us. I am not particularly interested in taking anyone else's word on this matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas View Post
    Downstreet on the flip-flop, timepants.

  6. #406

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRuss View Post
    I'm not really concerned with Mtripp either way. I'm concerned with Chuck's claims. Claims he made and claims he didn't make. Whether he was telling the truth, he himself was misled, or he was misleading us. I am not particularly interested in taking anyone else's word on this matter.
    It is taking evidence and connecting the dots... you are mixing up different epistemological frames of reference: you say "reproducable results" regarding a simple phone call for a source..... Reproducable results is part of the protocall for the scientific method, not investigative foresnsics. Conforming a source's information should ultimately involve nothing more than checking on the information... like "I called MIT and they said that chuck is/is not an alumni. "

    Russ in a criminal investigatory process do you really think that you would get anywhere if all leads were based on how you attained the info and the character of your reference? These are parts of the process but the information reveals itself through a logical progression working from the vantage point of the incident.
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.

  7. #407
    Rock Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    9,970
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    So far, I haven't seen an answer to a question I asked a long time ago in all of this.

    Considering Moose has apparently stated to MTripp that he didn't ask Chuck to find further information about his father's military records, What prompted Chuck, apparently without any previous reason or enquiry, to pull Moose's dad's name out of thin air and make whatever requests he made ?

    I can understand the drama this situation has caused and I can also understand Moose not wanting to pour fuel on this already smoldering situation but, I find his lack of contribution anywhere on these discussion, even if that were just to reinforce the apparent non-request, as a little odd.

    Now, I'll say this for the record again.

    I'm not defending Chuck, I'm not in the tank with Chuck I'm merely trying to see an angle on this.

    Mark Tripp has repeatedly stated that Chuck messed with family, if that's the case (and it may well be) I need an answer to my above question; because, *IF* Moose did ask for that information.. One or two other issues of Chuck's behaviour aside, Moose has some explaining to do.

    So I'd like to see Moose respond here please.

    I’d also like to publically say that I’m personally sorry to hear of any strife within the Moose household and hope things all straighten out with time.

    Dave
    "To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men".

    ~Ella Wheeler

  8. #408
    Snake Plissken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,553
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsimon3387 View Post
    Conforming a source's information should ultimately involve nothing more than checking on the information... like "I called MIT and they said that chuck is/is not an alumni. "
    I still don't recall ever seeing or having Chuck ever state on here or Sociocide that he attended or graduated from MIT.

    {EDIT I just read the MABS posting and it was just referenced yesterday on the MABS portion with two posters I trust to be telling the truth}

    And in a generally accepted Bullshido investigation, a copypasta of the email is posted showing date, time, to and from whom and the entire body of text.

    If a phone-call is made, again a transcript is posted along with the date, time and with whom they spoke and the flow of discussion. Sometimes it is just a summery of the discussion, but the key or salient points are posted in its entirety.

    Russ in a criminal investigatory process do you really think that you would get anywhere if all leads were based on how you attained the info and the character of your reference? These are parts of the process but the information reveals itself through a logical progression working from the vantage point of the incident.
    In a criminal investigation, a person with a close proximal relation to the aggrieved victim would be expected to recuse themselves from the investigation as their impartiality would be called into question.

    During any manner of conviction the validity of the sources of information would be looked at strongly by any halfway decent defense attorney and, yes, their character would be called into question. As well as the manner and style of how this information was attained.
    Last edited by Snake Plissken; 7/10/2010 9:22am at .

  9. #409

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Plissken View Post
    I still don't recall ever seeing or having Chuck ever state on here or Sociocide that he attended or graduated from MIT.

    {EDIT I just read the MABS posting and it was just referenced yesterday on the MABS portion with two posters I trust to be telling the truth}

    And in a generally accepted Bullshido investigation, a copypasta of the email is posted showing date, time, to and from whom and the entire body of text.

    If a phone-call is made, again a transcript is posted along with the date, time and with whom they spoke and the flow of discussion. Sometimes it is just a summery of the discussion, but the key or salient points are posted in its entirety.

    In a criminal investigation, a person with a close proximal relation to the aggrieved victim would be expected to recuse themselves from the investigation as their impartiality would be called into question.

    During any manner of conviction the validity of the sources of information would be looked at strongly by any halfway decent defense attorney and, yes, their character would be called into question. As well as the manner and style of how this information was attained.
    And what exactly are you responding to with that information?

    This is very frustrating I understand why people get so...... arggh!

    I am talking about basic standards that apply.... you are citing evidence that is carefully documented, constructed and presented. And you are talking about MIT and what amounts to (estoppel? sam?) i.e. someone making a statement about Chuck saying something (he went to MIT)....


    My point was directed at Russ' understanding of why he was getting infomation from the other poster... he said "if you say a phone call was made, One has to have the ability to duplicate it for it to be valid as it pertains to Chuck...Again... No! it does not work that way.

    a) In the Scientific Method of Investigation one criteria is in fact how the data was collected... and indeed one does have to be able to do as the initial scientist did and under the exact same conditions get the exact same result. THAT IS NOT A CRITERIA FOR THIS TYPE OF VERIFICATION.
    No.... me being able to call a same source and get the same statement means very little to nothing. What does mean something is when a source's information can be determined through other events and proof to be true.

    People are just mixing **** up and that is quite a fucking problem considering we are under the microscope. Why does this matter?

    because it really should take very little to find out whether some of these statements about chuck are true or false and... a lot of them have been determined already. Some of them have not but... this is not a scientific peer review where the idea is to pick apart Tripp's method of data collection and some people think it is. Wrong knowledge claim.

    I really at this point do not think I can add anything... David is right about a statement from Moose.
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.

  10. #410
    TheRuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334
    Style
    None
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsimon3387 View Post
    It is taking evidence and connecting the dots... you are mixing up different epistemological frames of reference: you say "reproducable results" regarding a simple phone call for a source..... Reproducable results is part of the protocall for the scientific method, not investigative foresnsics. Conforming a source's information should ultimately involve nothing more than checking on the information... like "I called MIT and they said that chuck is/is not an alumni. "

    Russ in a criminal investigatory process do you really think that you would get anywhere if all leads were based on how you attained the info and the character of your reference? These are parts of the process but the information reveals itself through a logical progression working from the vantage point of the incident.
    Someone hasn't been paying attention.
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas View Post
    Downstreet on the flip-flop, timepants.

Page 41 of 44 First ... 313738394041424344 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO